This information is for the Military Space Plan Integrated Technology Testbed (ITT), Solicitation Number F29601-97-R-0012, Phillips Laboratory, Kirtland AFB, NM. Notice is given to participants of the Briefing For Industry (BFI) that the deadline for clearances is 12 noon MST on 10 March 1997. If clearances are not received by this time we cannot guarantee that they will be processed in time for the BFI. Visitors are asked to check in at the Truman Gate for entrance to the Base. If you wish to participate in a one-on-one session please notify Pamela Hood at (505) 853-3359. The following documents are provided on this website: Agenda, Questions, Maps, Phone numbers and locations for hotels, Draft SOO and Draft Section M. Draft Section L is not available at this time it will be provided at the BFI.

DRAFT

AGENDA FOR MSP ITT BFI

11 & 12 MAR 97

0800 - 1600

11 MAR 97:

WELCOME 30 min

COL HEIL - Commander, Phillips Lab

LT COL SPONABLE - Director, MSP Technology Program

LINDA RAE JOHNSON - Contracting Officer (CO)

ADMINISTRATIVE DETAILS - Rhonda Peyton 10 min

BREAK AREAS, REST ROOMS, PHONES, QUESTIONS TO RESPOND TO, SIGN UP FOR 2ND DAY, ETC.

OUTLINE OF MEETING GROUND RULES (CO) 10 min

BRIEF OVERVIEW OF MEETING AGENDA (VT-X) 10 min

CLASSIFIED SESSION (MSP OVERVIEW BRIEFING - VT-X) 60 min

BREAK (10 min)

SPACE COMMAND INFORMATIONAL BRIEFING 20 min GOVERNMENT LAB/FACILITIES (short 10 min pitch from each lab/facility, 10 min Q&A)

PL/VT 20 min

PL/RK 20 min

WL 20 min

AL 20 min

NASA CENTERS 20 min

LUNCH (90 min)

ITT PROCUREMENT 120 min

ITT TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEW (VT-X)

EXPLORE CONTRACTING IDEAS/STRUCTURE (PCO)

ANTICIPATED FUNDING (PCO)

SCHEDULE/ANTICIPATED AWARD DATE (PCO and/or VT-X)

BREAK (10 min)

QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD

REVIEW OF ONE-ON ONE SESSIONS (SECOND DAY) 10 min

LOCATION: CONF CENTER ROOM 9

REVIEW SIGN UP

REVIEW GROUND RULES

ADJOURN

12 MAR 97:

ONE -ON -ONE SESSIONS WITH CONTRACTORS

REVIEW GROUND RULES

DISCUSSIONS

Hotels Near the Albuquerque Airport

1. Best Western Airport Inn

505-242-7022

2400 Yale Blvd. SE

2. Best Western Fred Harvey
505-843-7000

1-800-996-3426

2910 Yale Blvd SE

3. Budgetel Inn

505-242-1555

1-800-428-3438
1511 Gibson, SE

4. Comfort Inn

505-243-2244

1-800-228-5150

2300 Yale Blvd SE

5. Hampton Inn

505-246-2255

1-800-426-7866

2231 Yale Blvd SE

6. Holiday Inn Express

505-247-1500

1-800-465-4329

2331 Centre Ave. SE

7. La Quinta 505-243-5500

1-800-531-5900

2116 Yale Blvd. SE

8. Marriott Courtyard 505-843-6600

1-800-321-2211

1920 Yale Blvd SE

9. Radisson Inn 505-247-0512

1-800-333-3333

1901 University Blvd SE

10. Sleep Inn 505-244-3325

1-888-337-3262

2300 International

11. Ramada Limited 505-242-0036

1-800-272-6232
1801 Yale

12. Fairfield Inn 505-247-1621

1-800-228-2800
2300 Centre Ave.

ALBUQUERQUE

Near Kirtland AFB


              NAME                Address          Phone       

    Applebee's               Gibson & Yale,     244-0123       
    Blake's LotaBurger       6301 Gibson, SE    262-2438       
    Burger King              5401 Gibson, SE    262-0600       
    Christy's                2301 Yale, SE      243-8444       
    Goody's                  2120 Yale, SE      242-9442       
    IHOP                     5455 Gibson, SE    255-5753       
    Kentucky Fried Chicken   5305 Gibson, SE    268-8724       
    McDonald's               5001 Gibson, SE    256-0450       
    Marco's Ristorante       5901 Gibson, SE    256-7901       
    Miguel's Mexican         Gibson&San         255-9711       
    Pizza Hut                Mateo,SE           256-3400       
    Salad Express            5803 Gibson, SE                   
    Schlotzsky's                                266-0966       
    Taco Alley               5303 Gibson, SE    247-9359       
    Taco Bell                2300 Buena Vista,  268-1425       
    TNT Deli                 SE                 255-1117       
    Village Inn              4901 Gibson, SE    243-5476       
                             5309 Gibson, SE                   
                             2340 Yale, SE                     

                                                               

                        American                               

              NAME                Address          Phone       

    Bennigan's               2105-B             883-1665       
    Chili's Grill & Bar      Louisiana,NE       883-4321       
    High Finance             6909 Menaul, NE    243-9742       
    Marie Callender's        Top of Sandia      292-1463       
    Paul's Monterey Inn      Peak               294-1461       
    66 Diner                 5220 Eubank, NE    247-1421       
    Stephen's                1000 Juan Tabo,    842-1773       
    TGI Friday's             NE                 837-1100       
    YesterDave's Grill       1405 Central       293-0033       
                             Avenue                            
                             14th & Central                    
                             203 Winrock Ctr,                  
                             NE                                
                             10601 Montgomery                  

                                                               

                        Chinese                                

              NAME                Address          Phone       

    Fortune Cookie           5701 Gibson, SE    260-0991       
    Hunan                    1218 San Pedro,    266-3300       
    Ko Palace                SE                 884-2293       
                             4208 Menaul Blvd                  




                        Japanese                               

              NAME                Address          Phone       

     Japanese Kitchen        6521 Americas      884-8937       
     Minato of Japan         Pkwy               293-2929       
                             10721 Montgomery                  
                             Blvd,                             

                                                               

                        Italian                                

              NAME                Address          Phone       

     Macaroni Grill          2100 Louisiana     881-2400       
     Paisano's               Blvd               298-7541       
     Olive Garden            1935 Eubank, NE    275-9948       
     Olive Garden            601 Juan Tabo, NE  881-8425       
     Scalo N. Italian Grill  6301 San Mateo,    255-8781       
     Tomato Cafe             NE                 821-9300       
                             3500 Central, SE                  
                             5901 Wyoming Blvd                 

                                                               

                        Mexican                                

              NAME                Address          Phone       

     Cervantes               5801 Gibson, SE    262-2253       
     El Patio                142 Harvard, SE    268-4245       
     El Pinto                10500  4th, NW     898-1771       
     Garduno's               2100 Louisiana,    880-0055       
     K&I Diner (lunch)       NE                 243-1881       
     Los Cuates              2500 Broadway, SE  255-5079       
     Los Cuates              4901 Lomas, NE     268-0974       
     Mi Casita               5016-B Lomas, NE   256-0771       
     Papa Felipe's           8302 Zuni, SE      292-8877       
     Ron's Camino Real       9800 Menaul, NE    255-0973       
                             416 Yale, SE                      

                                                               

                        Sea Food                               

              NAME                Address          Phone       

     Cafe Oceana             1414 Central       247-2233       
     Rio Grande Yacht Club   Avenue             243-6111       
     Seagull Street          2500 Yale, SE      821-0020       
                             5410 Academy, NE                  

                                                               

                        Barbecue                               

              NAME                Address          Phone       

     J.R.'s                  6501 Gibson, SE    268-1676       
     Quarters                905 Yale, SE       843-7505       
     Quarters                4516 Wyoming, NE   299-9864       

                                                               



Military Spaceplane Integrated Technology Testbed (ITT)

Briefing for Industry (BFI)

11 - 12 March 1997

USAF Phillips Laboratory, Kirtland AFB, NM

The following questions apply to areas the Air Force intends to explore during the BFI with potential offerors. Please answer these questions with your thoughts and ideas and bring them to the BFI for discussion.

1. Given the Air Force's limited funding and current program maturity should the AF proceed on a single or multiple award basis for the ITT procurement? What do you see are the benefits for either approach?

2. Does the level of understanding of the overall requirements support a definitive statement of objectives (i.e. priced options) on a completion basis or should the work be defined on a task order basis?

3. Based on the understanding of requirements should the procurement be CPFF or CPAF, or is industry willing to support cost sharing?

4. Given the requirements of the ITT procurement what level of design maturity could be expected at the end of the basic effort and at the end of the full effort?

5. Has the Air Force identified the critical technology areas and can you provide a priority rank?

DRAFT

Statement of Objectives (SOO)

for the

Military Spaceplane Integrated Technology Testbed (ITT)

1.0 Introduction

The Integrated Technology Testbed (ITT) procurement seeks integrated technological solutions to specific Military Spaceplane (MSP) system requirements as defined in the MSP SRD (xx-xxx-xxx). The program is intended to proceed with an integrated design approach to specific technological challenges faced in developing an overall MSP System. Development of prototype hardware for all the major components of the MSP system (reusable boost vehicle, reusable low cost upper stage, etc.) will be considered.

2.0 Compliance Documents

In the interest of acquisition streamlining no compliance documents are required. However, the contractor is expected to use standard commercial practice or the contractor's standard operating procedures during the performance of this procurement, and to utilize the thresholds and goals se forth in the SRD as a guide.

3.0 Technical Objective

The primary objective of the ITT is to develop the MSP Mark I concept design and hardware with direct scaleability: directly scaleable weights, margins, loads, design, fabrication methods and testing approaches; and traceability: technology and general design similarity, to a full-scale Mark II-IV system. The ITT is intended to demonstrate the technologies necessary to achieve systems integration within the mass fraction constraints of Single Stage to Orbit (SSTO) vehicles. In addition, the ITT will meet the military operational requirements outlined in the MSP SRD. The MSP SRD is not a compliance document but shall guide the development and testing of the Ground Test Articles (GTA). Contractor's are not expected to meet all of the MSP SRD requirements to the demonstrator and the full scale system. However, contractors are expected to develop and demonstrate a clear risk reduction path.

4. 0 SPECIFIC TASKS

4.1 TECHNICAL BASELINE

The contractor will define a technical baseline to include representative parameters such as follow:

a. Physical design, layout, materials, dimensions, and volumes;

b. Flight vehicle mass properties including gross liftoff weight, empty weight, unit weights, and mass fractions;

c. Flight performance, aerodynamic characteristics, and optimized ascent and descent trajectories;

d. Payload capacity versus maximum velocity, orbital inclination, and altitude capability achieved;

e. Identify total lift margin including both payload, design weight margins and any performance weight margin above the minimum necessary to achieve a once around the earth mission for the orbital vehicle;

f. Propulsion subsystem characteristics including engine type, chamber pressure, turbopump pressures, propellant, propellant mixture ratio, specific impulse, throttling capability, burn time per flight, number of restarts per flight, nozzle type and expansion ratio, engine weight and size;

g. Cross range maneuver capability;

h. Crosswind takeoff and landing limitations;

i. Weather constraints;

j. Fleet size and flight rate required to accomplish the Design Reference Missions (Paragraph 2.2.3.1b, System Requirements Document; Appendix A);

k. Manpower, skill types and levels;

l. Estimated vehicle turnaround, mean time between failure, mean time to repair, reliability, and other critical maintenance parameters;

m. Operations and maintenance cost estimates to accomplish the flight requirements;

n. Standardized payload handling concept;

o. Main operating base concept including payload support, flight vehicle support, and propellant storage, and range facilities and services;

p. Manufacturing, assembly, checkout, and transportation concept.

The technical baseline will be reflected in the ITT model and GTAs.

4.2 MILITARY SPACEPLANE COMPUTER ITT (Basic)

The contractor shall develop an ITT which is focused on developing and demonstrating the test and technical objectives of the Mark I vehicle(s) via ground component/subsystem and system GTAs of Mark I components. The testbed itself shall be a computer sizing model of the Military Spaceplane. Input parameters include mission requirements and all of the critical component, subsystem and system technical criteria. Output are the critical design features, size, physical layout, and performance of the resulting vehicle. The computer model shall be capable of modeling the technology component/subsystem/system demonstrated characteristics and the resulting effect(s) on the Military Spaceplane vehicle concept design. Although the ITT is required to show analytical component and subsystem scaleability to SSTO, the contractor may also show scaleability and traceability to alternative MSP configurations. Those alternatives may include two stage to orbit (TSTO) configurations.

4.3 ITT GROUND TEST ARTICLE (GTA) OPTIONS

The contractor shall provide a series of GTA options for the following critical technologies:

Airframe Structure

Cryogenic Tanks

Ground and Flight Operations and Control System

Reliability, Maintainability, Supportability and Availability

Aerodynamics, Stability and Control

Avionics/Flight Control Hardware and Software

Thermal Protection System

Propulsion and Propellant Feed System

Ground Vehicle Integration and Test

4.3.1 GTA DESIGN

Upon direction of the Government through exercise of the option(s) the contractor shall design, fabricate, analyze, and test GTAs, and provide a risk reduction program for all critical technology components, subsystems and subsystems assembly.

The contractor will prepare options for an ITT GTA designs which satisfy the technical objectives of this SOO, including both scaleability and traceability to the Mark I and Mark II-IV vehicles. These design shall be presented to the Government at a System Requirements Review (SRR). The contractor shall use available technologies and innovative concepts in the designs, manufacturing processes, assembly and integration process, and ground test. Designs shall focus on operational simplicity and minimizing vehicle processing requirements. The contractor shall provide the detailed layout and systems engineering analysis required to demonstrate the feasibility and performance of the Mark I vehicle as well as scaleability and traceability to the Mark II-IV vehicles. The contractor will implement a comprehensive mass management program to satisfy the objectives of the nominal SRD.

4.3.2 FABRICATION, ANALYSIS AND TEST

The contractor shall demonstrate by design analyses, by design similarity, or by fabrication and testing that the GTA Ground Demonstrator components, structures and support equipment are adequate to perform their intended purpose. The contractor shall utilize system engineering practices to define the test requirements, procedures, facilities, test data requirements, and schedules that make up the contractor's test program for the components, software and structures and make this data available to the Government upon request. Test reports documenting the results of all such tests shall also be made available to the Government.

In order to maintain a system level focus for the ITT, the design effort shall focus on an integrated Mark I vehicle available for a rigorous ground test program. The goal of this test program will be to demonstrate the viability of the chosen design solutions under operational conditions. Of equal importance for the test program will be to demonstrate the ability of military personnel to operate and maintain the system in a similar fashion to present day military aircraft. The specific reliability, maintainability, supportability and availability (RMS&A) requirements for the MSP system are identified in the SRD

4.3.3 ITT RISK REDUCTION PROGRAM

The contractor shall use the ITT to implement the initial risk reduction program that mitigates risks critical to developing both the Mark I and Mark II-IV MSP configurations. The ITT shall mitigate risks critical to engineering, operability, technology, reliability, safety, or schedule and any subsequent risk reduction program deemed necessary. The program may include early component fabrication, detailed vehicle integration planning or prudent factory and ground/flight testing to reduce risks. The contractor should evaluate the use of the Integrated Powerhead Demonstration (IPD) XLR-13X engine as a risk reduction step being done in parallel and as a baseline engine for MSP. The contractor shall identify the status of technical performance measurements for program critical elements, maintain the applicable milestones on the Program Master Schedule, and report the status at each Program Management Review (PMR).

DRAFT

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1.0 FAR CLAUSES INCLUDED BY REFERENCE:

( ) 52.217-3 EVALUATION EXCLUSIVE OF OPTIONS APR 1984

( ) 52.217-4 EVALUATION OF OPTION EXERCISED AT JUN 1988

TIME OF CONTRACT AWARD

( ) 52.217-5 EVALUATION OF OPTIONS JUL 1990

2.0 INTRODUCTION:

This section outlines those areas which comprise the criteria the Government will consider in evaluating offerors' proposals submitted in response to this solicitation. The evaluation criteria listed in paragraph 4 of this section are intended to show the scope of the evaluation to be performed. Evaluation will be conducted by comparing indiviudal offerors' proposals to the requirements of the solicitation. Section L of this RFP defines the proposal elements and data required form each offeror.

3.0 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD:

a. This source selection will be conducted in accordance with AFFARS Appendix BB, AFMCFARS Appendix BB, Section F.

b. The government intends to award either "a single contract" or "multiple contracts" as a result of this solicitation, but reserves the right to award no contract, depending upon the quality of proposals received and subject to the availability of funds.

c. The government reserves the right to award without discussions. Offerors are therefore advised to submit their best proposal initially. Offers which merely reiterate or reformulate the Statement of Work/Statement of Objective contained in this solicitation, may not be considered for award. Additionally, any one of the following conditions may result in elimination of an offer from the competition:

i) Failure to provide all information prescribed in Section L of this solicitation in sufficient detail to demonstrate complete understanding of the Government's requirements/objectives AND the completeness, realism and reasonableness of proposed costs;

ii) Failure to provide evidential documentation to support all claims of required qualifications, experience or capability;

iii) Failure of the cost or price proposal to reconcile with the technical and management proposal(s);

iv) Inclusion of unrealistically low proposed costs or prices;

v) An unacceptable rating in any one factor in any Area, regardless of the ratings in any other factor; or

vi) Failure to adhere to the terms and conditions of the solicitation.

d. Award of any contract(s) as a result of this solicitation will be made to the offeror(s) whose proposal(s) conform(s) to the solicitation and represent(s) the best value to the government. Best value will be determined via an integrated assessment of each offeror's proposal and evaluated cost and fee. Cost/benefit tradeoffs may be considered in selecting the proposal(s) representing the best value to the Government.

4.0 EVALUATION CRITERIA:

Each offerors' proposal will be evaluated under the following areas: Technical (Area A), Management (Area B) and Cost (Area C). The areas are listed in descending order of importance, although Cost will be considered a substantial factor in the source selection. Within each Area, the factors are in descending order of importance. An unacceptable rating assigned at any level (area or factor) of the evaluation criteria will result in elimination of the proposal from further consideration.

a. AREA A - Technical

FACTOR 1: SOUNDNESS OF APPROACH

The evaluation will include an assessment of how well the Spaceplane computer model concept and options for GTAs meets the objectives of the SOO and draft SRD. An overall assessment will be made of the offeror's design and plan for prediction and validation of the subsystem and system mass properties. An assessment of whether the offeror's Mark I design will directly scale-up to a Mark II-IV capability will be performed.

FACTOR 2: UNDERSTANDING THE REQUIREMENT

The evaluation will include the vehicle system and subsystem design and performance margins and interfaces for both the model and GTA options. The offeror will be evaluated on the ability to perform systems analyses and trade-off studies to arrive at a logic al solution of overall system requirements. The offeror's understanding of integration requirements and the definition of those requirerments will be evaluated. The offeror's overall test program will be evaluated for completeness, i.e., the use of assets and test facilities in the development, checkout, test and assembly of the Mark I demonstrator.

b. AREA B: MANAGEMENT

FACTOR 1: UNDERSTANDING THE REQUIREMENTS

The offeror's approach to systems engineering will be evaluated to determine the methodology for identifying, analyzing, selecting, and implementing the alternatives available for reducing the risk factors. Evaluation will include critical technologies and their ranking.

FACTOR 2: SOUNDNESS OF APPROACH

The evaluation will include an assessment of the offeror's approach to program management and communication requirements associated with the ITT program. Consideration will be given to the offeror's approach that demonstrates a highly effective, efficient and responsive organization.

c. COST PROPOSAL

FACTOR 1: COMPLETENESS

The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which it includes:

i) cost estimates, as prescribed in Section L of this solicitation, for all products and/or services to be provided in fulfillment of all contract requirements; and

ii) sufficient data, documentation and supporting rationale, as prescribed in Section L of this solicitation, to substantiate each cost estimate.

FACTOR 2: REALISM

The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which proposed costs are consistent with:

i) the types, quantities, qualities and performance/delivery schedules of all products and/or services being proposed in all volumes of the proposal; and

ii) the offeror's established and/or generally accepted estimating and accounting policies, practices and procedures; and

iii) the offeror's current and anticipated business, economic and demographic circumstances.

FACTOR 3: REASONABLENESS

The proposal will be evaluated using appropriate price/cost analysis techniques to determine if the offeror's proposed costs are consistent in nature and amount with what a prudent person would be willing to recognize for the same or similar products and/or services under comparable acquisition circumstances. Reasonableness may be established by adequate price competition (APC), if determined to exist.